If the Earth is losing its remnant heat of formation, then would you say that eventually all the magma in the Earth would eventually crystallize? But if that happens, the cooler, crystallized rock would be more dense, exerting more pressure on the rock below. I am aware that it is *depressurization* that causes melting in the asthenosphere, but could some melting occur (in my hypoth. situation) due to the addition of pressure? (Directly or indirectly) Or does the addition of pressure never cause melting?
Also, what would crystallize last? Closer to the surface? or at depth? Or, would something else happen at these great pressures?
One last thing, now that we have the Earth crystallized, how would the tectonic process be affected? For example, spreading ridges might stop spreading. Convergence of plates might continue for a while due to slab-pull. This may induce some tensional forces at the trailing margins, leading to some rifting, depressurization, and widening (or new) spreading zones.
Obviously, the solution would not be simple, and would rely on many factors. Is there any (published) estimates out there on how this may happen, and how long this all might take? Thanks for any thoughts. EC
A better explanation of the mineralogy than I can give briefly can be found by looking up Bowen's reaction series in a search engine, or beginning college geology text. The surface cools first, then the inside. However, since much of the crust is already cooled, it isn't likely to cool more than those cold rocks at the poles, and at cold depth in the polar oceans.
This question is academic,as humans are likely to be no more by the time the earth becomes a "cold rock in space". And it may not ever become totally cold all the way through--chances are the Sun will become a red giant and engulf its children out to at least Mars before then.
> If the Earth is losing its remnant heat of formation, then would you say > that eventually all the magma in the Earth would eventually crystallize? > But if that happens, the cooler, crystallized rock would be more dense, > exerting more pressure on the rock below. I am aware that it is > *depressurization* that causes melting in the asthenosphere, but could some > melting occur (in my hypoth. situation) due to the addition of pressure? > (Directly or indirectly) > Or does the addition of pressure never cause melting?
> Also, what would crystallize last? Closer to the surface? or at depth? > Or, would something else happen at these great pressures?
> One last thing, now that we have the Earth crystallized, how would the > tectonic process be affected? For example, spreading ridges might stop > spreading. Convergence of plates might continue for a while due to > slab-pull. This may induce some tensional forces at the trailing margins, > leading to some rifting, depressurization, and widening (or new) spreading > zones.
> Obviously, the solution would not be simple, and would rely on many factors. > Is there any (published) estimates out there on how this may happen, and how > long this all might take? > Thanks for any thoughts. > EC
> If the Earth is losing its remnant heat of formation, then would you say > that eventually all the magma in the Earth would eventually crystallize?
No, this is not the only energy source of the earth. A big part of the energy is energy of a radioactive decay of elements, such as K. The energy, which comes from the gravitational collapse of the earth, heated the entire mass upto 1000 C. As you know, the heat within the core of the earth is more than 5000 C. So we have a good working heat source, which will last along time!
>> If the Earth is losing its remnant heat of formation, then would you say >> that eventually all the magma in the Earth would eventually crystallize?
>No, this is not the only energy source of the earth. A big part of the >energy is energy of a radioactive decay of elements, such as K. The energy, >which comes from the gravitational collapse of the earth, heated the entire >mass upto 1000 C. >As you know, the heat within the core of the earth is more than 5000 C. >So we have a good working heat source, which will last along time!
> How much K is needed to generate 5000 C for 4by?
Yes, that is a good question - but better is to ask: How much K is needed to generate 5000 C within 4by?
At first i have to repeat: not only potassium (K40) is decayed, but also Th, U.
The earth has a enormous volume compared to its surface. And the heat flux is very low (i remember 1W per m2?). So, it needs very low (ppm!) concentrations of these elements to heat the earth up.
Jörg Reichert wrote: > Hello > No, this is not the only energy source of the earth. A big part of the > energy is energy of a radioactive decay of elements, such as K. The > energy, which comes from the gravitational collapse of the earth, heated > the entire mass upto 1000 C. > As you know, the heat within the core of the earth is more than 5000 C. > So we have a good working heat source, which will last along time!
Thanks and agreed. It's interesting to consider the possiblity of the Earth being in its "infant" stage at present.
> > No, this is not the only energy source of the earth. A big part of the > > energy is energy of a radioactive decay of elements, such as K. The > > energy, which comes from the gravitational collapse of the earth, heated > > the entire mass upto 1000 C. > > As you know, the heat within the core of the earth is more than 5000 C. > > So we have a good working heat source, which will last along time!
> Thanks and agreed. It's interesting to consider the possiblity of the Earth > being in its "infant" stage at present.
> EC
Some infant! How can you get gravitational collapse when the heat is pushing up all these ridges, opening up the crust, resurfacing the planet and churning all the butter?? Again, who's the Big Cheese here, Heat? or Gravity? And why? And what's the potassium actually in? How much? Where? And how do we know? K-felspar?? (phuh!). But if we all agree, then sure, ..who needs facts.... After all they are such darned things. But anyhow, ..what about this fact of aggregate transform continuity and spirality that no-one (but me) seems to want to take into account? <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense.html> Somebody care to falsify that one? df.
Furthermore i want to thank you for you precise arguments, qoute:
> Some infant! How can you get gravitational collapse when the heat is > pushing up all these ridges, opening up the crust, resurfacing the > planet and churning all the butter?? Again, who's the Big Cheese > here, Heat? or Gravity? And why? And what's the potassium actually > in? How much? Where? And how do we know? K-felspar?? (phuh!). But > if we all agree, then sure, ..who needs facts.... After all they are > such darned things. But anyhow, ..what about this fact of aggregate > transform continuity and spirality that no-one (but me) seems to want > to take into account?
You are in a newsgroup here. We can discuss anything, but please, say it with your own words, and your own arguments. You have some arguments, you have some questions? Please, write them in this newsgroup and we will discuss them. But, dont send us funny links.
>K-felspar?? (phuh!)
This is no argument. Oh sorry, yes, this is an argument, but a chilish one.
>Furthermore i want to thank you for you precise arguments, qoute:
For your part, you could answer the original question I ask. It is quantifiable and if you do not know how, or cannot, you are not qualified to answer the question.
So when you will, or can, then maybe your personal opinions will have some weight.
>> Some infant! How can you get gravitational collapse when the heat is >> pushing up all these ridges, opening up the crust, resurfacing the >> planet and churning all the butter?? Again, who's the Big Cheese >> here, Heat? or Gravity? And why? And what's the potassium actually >> in? How much? Where? And how do we know? K-felspar?? (phuh!). But >> if we all agree, then sure, ..who needs facts.... After all they are >> such darned things. But anyhow, ..what about this fact of aggregate >> transform continuity and spirality that no-one (but me) seems to want >> to take into account?
>You are in a newsgroup here. We can discuss anything, but please, say it >with your own words, and your own arguments. You have some arguments, you >have some questions? Please, write them in this newsgroup and we will >discuss them. But, dont send us funny links.
>>K-felspar?? (phuh!)
>This is no argument. Oh sorry, yes, this is an argument, but a chilish one.
I thought, that i answered your question. You are right, I cant give you the amount of U, Th, and K (in kg), but i described the processes of heating
What was your question?
>How much K is needed to generate 5000 C for 4by?
As I described, the heat of the earth is not only the effect of the exclusive decay of K40, but also (and mostly) of U, and Th.
So, lets have a look at the concentrations of these elements in the undepleated mantle: U: 0,02ppm, Th: 0,1 ppm, and K 0,02 (%). And here comes the heat generation of these elements (10E-10 W/kg) in the undepleated mantle U: 0,02, Th: 0,03, K: 0,007.
Yes, these are small amouts, but remember: The heat-flux on earth surface is very small! And 4.5 by are a long time to heat up the earth. The most part of the heat comes from the (heavy) U and Th. I think, the concentrations of these elements are much higher in the core, then in the mantle. And this might be the reason for the high temperatures within the core. You see the concentration of these elements - and I think these amounts (and much higher in the core) are needed to heet the earth up.
>Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. >From: J. Taylor j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net >Date: 2/19/03 5:35 AM Hawaiian Standard Time >Message-id: <vq875vghjumnfvsa2k2l380od62kv67...@4ax.com>
>>Furthermore i want to thank you for you precise arguments, qoute:
>For your part, you could answer the original question I ask. It is >quantifiable and if you do not know how, or cannot, you are not >qualified to answer the question.
>So when you will, or can, then maybe your personal opinions will have >some weight.
>JT
Hey JT, why not post your evidence that the ocean basins have uniform ages as you've claimed.
THen maybe you'll be considered something besides a troll.
Stuart Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics "To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
Hi I always thought, that the consensus was, that most of the radio active elements were in the mantle and outer layers of the earth? If they were in the core they would tend( or would have tended at the origin) to sink to the centre and we would all be sitting on a bomb. Is this perhaps the mechanism for the exploding planet theory of the asteroid belt? Best regards Al
>Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. >From: "Alan Wade" alm...@warndon83.freeserve.co.uk >Date: 2/19/03 11:40 AM Hawaiian Standard Time >Message-id: <b30tko$gu...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>
>Hi >I always thought, that the consensus was, that most of the radio active >elements were in the mantle and outer layers of the earth? >If they were in the core they would tend( or would have tended at the >origin) to sink to the centre and we would all be sitting on a bomb.
Actually that has been proposed, unfortunately for now there is no way to test it. As for sitting on a bomb, I think we can take solace that if indeed there is a concentration of U at the Earth's center, it most likely would've gone off billions of years ago, when, well, there was twice as much of it.
We cannot detect a ball containing uranium with the dimensions of ~1km at the Earth's center..
>Is this perhaps the mechanism for the exploding planet theory of the >asteroid belt?
I haven't heard that one.
Stuart Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics "To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
> origin) to sink to the centre and we would all be sitting on a bomb. > Is this perhaps the mechanism for the exploding planet theory of the
Do you mean a nuclear bomb? I think, you dont have to be afraid, that you are sitting on a nuclear bomb, called earth. For a nuclear bomb it is nessesary to reach a 'critical mass', but in case of the earth, I think that is not possible. Here we have concentrations of ppm's, and that is definetely not enough! There are too much other elements in between the decaying (U) Elements. The neutrons are absorbed by these elements, and no chain reaction is possible.
The radioactive decay is IMHO not dependant to the temperature.
So, sleep worry-free, if you dont live on a military (nuclear) base.
> Furthermore i want to thank you for you precise arguments, qoute:
> > Some infant! How can you get gravitational collapse when the heat is > > pushing up all these ridges, opening up the crust, resurfacing the > > planet and churning all the butter?? Again, who's the Big Cheese > > here, Heat? or Gravity? And why? And what's the potassium actually > > in? How much? Where? And how do we know? K-felspar?? (phuh!). But > > if we all agree, then sure, ..who needs facts.... After all they are > > such darned things. But anyhow, ..what about this fact of aggregate > > transform continuity and spirality that no-one (but me) seems to want > > to take into account?
> You are in a newsgroup here. We can discuss anything, but please, say it > with your own words, and your own arguments. You have some arguments, you > have some questions? Please, write them in this newsgroup and we will > discuss them. But, dont send us funny links.
> >K-felspar?? (phuh!)
> This is no argument. Oh sorry, yes, this is an argument, but a chilish one.
> Best regards,
> Joerg
It wasn't an argument Joerg, it was a list of questions based around which has pre-eminence (heat or gravity?). The argument's on my site for anyone interested. Plate tectonics demands a heat *excess. If gravity set up the initial parameters (gravitational collapse of stellar material > planetary formation > crust mantle and core) why would any small 'second order' result of that (radioactivity - the crystallisation residue that didn't make it to the crust) , now be undoing what gravity put together in the first place (breaking up the crust, churning the mantle to expose two thirds of it, and pushing an equivalent amount of crust back down where it never was meant to be)? And doing so in such conspicuous style and at such a terrific (geological) rate? Isn't there a scale problem there?
That's the question. Or to put it another way, how does plate tectonics see the relationship of this heat (from radioactivity) to gravity, given (?) the primacy of gravity in the Universe? The funny links detail related questions, which are there and not here, because they would clutter up the page. If the forum would rather not have to press buttons and look at pictures, but just mince words and numbers, then I'll ask the three main ones which are on my mind - and no doubt those of a lot of other children, and to which on their and my behalf I wouldn't mind an answer (if anyone's got one) 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and spirality of transforms? 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and become a fact? 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
Thus far these three have not attracted much response from supporters of plate tectonics, not any that would satisfy many children I'm sure. (funny links as above). Don. ("But he has nothing on! said a little child at last.")
>>Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. >>From: J. Taylor j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net >>Date: 2/19/03 5:35 AM Hawaiian Standard Time >>Message-id: <vq875vghjumnfvsa2k2l380od62kv67...@4ax.com>
>>>Furthermore i want to thank you for you precise arguments, qoute:
>>For your part, you could answer the original question I ask. It is >>quantifiable and if you do not know how, or cannot, you are not >>qualified to answer the question.
>>So when you will, or can, then maybe your personal opinions will have >>some weight.
>>JT
>Hey JT, why not post your evidence that the ocean basins have uniform ages as >you've claimed.
don findlay wrote: > 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and > spirality of transforms?
What are you talking about? Spirality of transforms?
> 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and > become a fact? > 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
How would you then explain volcanic arcs? Hot spots? Peleomagnetic dating of oceanic crust?
Thinking of myself of a budding "good" scientist, I've read your alternative hypotheses. Where is your field data to back it up. Or is it just a guess?
> Thus far these three have not attracted much response from supporters > of plate tectonics, not any that would satisfy many children I'm sure.
> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and > spirality of transforms? > 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and > become a fact? > 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
What is your profession? You are a geologist? If its true, then you know that all the (standard) answers for your questions.
> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and > spirality of transforms?
As you can read, my english is not the best. Please explain "aggregate continuity ". Yes, I can translate it, but I think that I don't know what you mean.
> 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and > become a fact?
For me it is a fact. I have no doubt. So many facts support the the assumption of subduction processes. For example, the assotiated volcanism, earth quakes (and the earth quakes show the pattern of subducted plate toward to the depth!, until the subducted plate becomes ductile).
> 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
This (as you know?!) is a matter of the specific weight. The oceanic crust: 3g/cm-3, the continental crust: 2,7g/cm-3.
>Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. >From: "Jörg Reichert" jo.reich...@web.de >Date: 2/20/03 12:13 AM Hawaiian Standard Time >Message-id: <b329oc$1gska...@ID-45174.news.dfncis.de>
>> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and >> spirality of transforms? >> 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and >> become a fact? >> 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
> What is your profession? You are a geologist? If its true, then you know >that all the (standard) answers for your questions.
>> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and >> spirality of transforms?
>As you can read, my english is not the best. Please explain "aggregate >continuity ". Yes, I can translate it, but I think that I don't know what >you mean.
Heck, even those of us for who English is out native language don't understand him.
He doesn't make much sense to us either..
Stuart Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics "To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
>Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. >From: J. Taylor j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net >Date: 2/19/03 3:37 PM Hawaiian Standard Time >Message-id: <6kb85vsh42gohop5t90ememd80l0ge4...@4ax.com>
>On 19 Feb 2003 19:45:35 GMT, bigdak...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) >wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. >>>From: J. Taylor j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net >>>Date: 2/19/03 5:35 AM Hawaiian Standard Time >>>Message-id: <vq875vghjumnfvsa2k2l380od62kv67...@4ax.com>
>>>>Furthermore i want to thank you for you precise arguments, qoute:
>>>For your part, you could answer the original question I ask. It is >>>quantifiable and if you do not know how, or cannot, you are not >>>qualified to answer the question.
>>>So when you will, or can, then maybe your personal opinions will have >>>some weight.
>>>JT
>>Hey JT, why not post your evidence that the ocean basins have uniform ages >as >>you've claimed.
>>Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. >>From: J. Taylor j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net >>Date: 2/19/03 3:37 PM Hawaiian Standard Time >>Message-id: <6kb85vsh42gohop5t90ememd80l0ge4...@4ax.com>
>>On 19 Feb 2003 19:45:35 GMT, bigdak...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) >>wrote:
>>>>Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. >>>>From: J. Taylor j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net >>>>Date: 2/19/03 5:35 AM Hawaiian Standard Time >>>>Message-id: <vq875vghjumnfvsa2k2l380od62kv67...@4ax.com>
>>>>>Furthermore i want to thank you for you precise arguments, qoute:
>>>>For your part, you could answer the original question I ask. It is >>>>quantifiable and if you do not know how, or cannot, you are not >>>>qualified to answer the question.
>>>>So when you will, or can, then maybe your personal opinions will have >>>>some weight.
>>>>JT
>>>Hey JT, why not post your evidence that the ocean basins have uniform ages >>as >>>you've claimed.
>>Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. >>From: "Jörg Reichert" jo.reich...@web.de >>Date: 2/20/03 12:13 AM Hawaiian Standard Time >>Message-id: <b329oc$1gska...@ID-45174.news.dfncis.de>
>>> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and >>> spirality of transforms? >>> 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and >>> become a fact? >>> 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
>> What is your profession? You are a geologist? If its true, then you know >>that all the (standard) answers for your questions.
>>> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and >>> spirality of transforms?
>>As you can read, my english is not the best. Please explain "aggregate >>continuity ". Yes, I can translate it, but I think that I don't know what >>you mean.
>Heck, even those of us for who English is out native language don't understand >him.
>He doesn't make much sense to us either..
In a year and a half of reading opposition post to your position, it can be shown little makes sense to you , but your own opinion.
|
